Nisar Ahmed Thakur
Islamabad, Dec 27 2008: The chairman of Muslim League-N and secretary General of Mohtamar Alam-e-Islam Raja Zaffar-ul-Haq has said that in order to divert attention from real issues war hype is being created to push the region towards a disastrous confrontation.
"So for as the Mumbai incident is concerned we have strongly condemned the attack as we believe that such incidents have negative impacts on the overall situation of the region and that is why, the urge for peace in the region, has always been our priority", the PML-N central leader said this during an informal chat with Greater Kashmir on Friday.
Talking about the different dimensions of the Mumbai incident he maintained that there was an attempt to sabotage the peace talks so as to put off Americas' growing interests in the region vis-à-vis the settlement of the longstanding dispute of Kashmir. "India was not happy with the latest developments especially with reference to the US president Barak Obama's statements and his decision of appointing former president Mr. Bill Clinton as special envoy on Kashmir", he said adding that Pakistan and the Kashmiri leadership hailed this initiative whereas India did not appreciate it at all.
Zaffar-ul-Haq stated that this time India was very much upset as it realized that such a development would bring the issue of Kashmir into lime light at international level again and they would have no excuses but to talk about the this issue. He said that there is a thinking that some people might have created this whole scenario to push the two nations back into hostility and antagonism whereby new issues will come to the fore and nothing tangible could be done to address the serious issues like Kashmir. "This is actually the third dimension of Mumbai episode that is being discussed in the news papers now and then", he added.
About India's hostile intent he said that it was very unfortunate that war hype is being created to shift focus from serious issues saying that India for its political motives and mere political requirements at domestic level, has been pushing the whole region towards confrontation.
Referring to airspace violations and Indian threat of hot pursuit into Pakistani territory he said those who are talking of a limited war are living in the utopian world. "It is easy to set off war but no one can lay down its limits, if there are surgical strikes on Pakistani soil it is beyond the imagination that one can remain silent", he said.
Referring to off the cuff statements by the Pakistani leadership he said that at this crucial stage there was a dire need to have well thought-out, proper consultation and collective decisions to meet the challenges.
Regarding Kashmiris' liberation struggle he said, "This is a matter of life and death of millions of people and could not be just ignored or placed in cold-store". So for as the settlement of the issue is concerned he said that there is a national consensus on the issue and as per the UN resolutions people of Kashmir have every right to choose their future destiny and no country has even the right to challenge the highest body's decisions unilaterally".
He state that the PML-N has very clear stance in this regard and it was the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief who started this peace process with then Indian Premier Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1999. "The initiative was highly appreciated and there was optimism that this process would help to bring durable peace in South Asia by resolving all outstanding issue including Kashmir".
"Even today, if any effort is being made to normalize relations between the two countries, it does not mean that we are appeasing any one rather there is a desire for peace that is desperately needed to thrash out all issues particularly the issue of Kashmir", he added.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Resolution of conflicts must to ensure peace in SA: Fazl
Nisar Ahmed Thakur
Islamabad, 03 Dec: The seasoned parliamentarian and the Chairman of Pakistan's All Parties Parliamentary Committee on Kashmir, Moulana Fazl-ur-Rehman has said that that the dream of eternal peace in South Asia would remain illusive unless the long-standing dispute of Kashmir was resolved to the satisfaction all the concerned parties including India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir.
"Enhanced trade between the two neighbouring states, people to people contacts, peace, security and other related issues confronted by the two nations are somehow, one way or the other interlinked to Kashmir issue, therefore it is essential that India and Pakistan should make it as a basis to settle all other outstanding issues", Rehman, the well-known political cum religious leader and the chief Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam (F) Pakistan said this during an exclusive interview with Greater Kashmir on Monday.
"No doubt there are some elements who don't want good-relations between India and Pakistan but for the larger interests of the people of the subcontinent the leadership on both sides should rise to the occasion and let the peace overtures continue so that an enabling atmosphere is created to remove all the hurdles in the way of peace and harmony", he maintained.
You have been appointed as the chairman of Kashmir Committee. What are the primary objectives the Committee?
The All Parties Parliamentary Kashmir committee was established in 1994 and its formation by it-self reflects the commitment of the people and the government of Pakistan with Kashmiris' just cause.
Besides devising strategy and to develop broader consensus on the issue, the primary objective of the committee is to project Kashmir issue both at national as well as international level. In order to take Kashmiri people into confidence, the committee, periodically, holds deliberations and discussions with Kashmiri leadership on both sides of line of control to seek their point of view with regard to the developments taking place in the region. The opinions and the comprehensions of the Kashmiri leaders are given a special priority and their suggestions are accordingly incorporated in the recommendations being presented to the government of Pakistan. In this regard we had a meeting with Kashmiri leaders in which the former chairman and the senior Hurriyat leader Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat was invited.
Do all the parliamentary parties have identical approach so for as the final settlement of Kashmir dispute is concerned?
There is no second opinion as all the Parliamentary parties in Pakistan have one and the same approach on Kashmir and they speak in one voice so for as the question of final settlement of Kashmir dispute is concerned.
Under the international covenants, do you think that that Kashmiri leadership has any role in the ongoing peace talks?
As per the international and the bilateral agreements there are two parties to the dispute that is India and Pakistan, but finally it is the people of Kashmir who will decide their own destiny. However, owing to the unparalleled sacrifices of the people of Jammu and Kashmir it was need of the hour that they should be kept aware of the developments and the progress being made on the issue.
Pakistan does have a principled and historic stance over Kashmir that is the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be given a chance to exercise their right, the right to self-determination guaranteed to them by the world community
After rendering huge sacrifices for their just cause I think they could not be just ignored or kept at bay. We have a very clear stance in this regard that is Kashmiris should be associated with the dialogue process; however, if this is not possible they should be at least kept close to the talk's process whereby they could be able to observe the day to day developments in this regard.
India has offered no proposals nor has it reciprocated to the proposals put forth by Pakistan. What would you like to say about it?
Pakistan has adopted a realistic approach but it was very unfortunate that India is back tracking from its own commitments that it had been made with the people of Kashmir and the world community vis-à-vis the resolution of the dispute. We are stick to our principle stance and want that the issue should be settled in line with the pledges made at the international level.
For last several decades, no-doubt there have been many ups and downs in the bilateral relations but Kashmir is an internationally recognised dispute and India's intransigence and unrealistic attitude has always been a stumbling block in the way of peace. Though, this is encouraging that after a long struggle India has finally accepted it (Kashmir) as an important issue to be resolved through talks.
What about out of the box solutions?
With changing political scenario at international level, new approaches are being discussed but being a rational I believe that unless and until we have on hand a concrete and tangible alternative solution, acceptable to all the concerned parties India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris, we can not just think of any other solution or mechanism other than what it has been agreed under the UN resolutions.
What is your opinion regarding president Mushrraf's four point formula? Do you think it was a right move?
So for as President Mushrraf's proposal were concerned, there has not been any strong reaction from Kashmiri quarters and they had not rejected the idea out rightly but there had been some flaws on the technical side, which we have discussed threadbare. Although Mushraff Sahib put forth an idea, but it was not entertained and reciprocated by Indian rulers. As a matter of the fact this approach did not benefit Pakistan diplomatically and no substantial progress was made on the Kashmir front, it was totally a one sided affair giving an impression as if it was the sole responsibility of Pakistan to restore the confidence of Indian establishment (New Delhi).
What about the outcome of composite dialogue process, are you satisfied?
After years' of diplomatic hard work, the ongoing composite dialogue process was initiated in January 2004. It was a good beginning that benefited ordinary people but it is an established fact that there was no substantial progress on Kashmir front what it was pledged by the leadership of both the countries that the two nations would explore the ways and means to bring about an amicable solution of Kashmir tangle.
I visited New Delhi in July 2003, during my discussions with Indian leadership and I told them that there was a dire need to restore trade and communication links between the two countries. It was the time when Air links, train, bus and trade everything was just standstill. I said that the poor people of the region are inter-linked to each other, there are blood relations all across and the families are divided on both sides, there are historical, educational and spiritual links which could not be just ignored. For that matter I suggested that the dialogue was only way by which we can narrow down the differences and put an end to the decades' long hostility. I said for the betterment of the teeming millions of the subcontinent; cordial relations between the two neighbouring countries were essential. I said the poor-people of the region need peace and harmony to flourish; therefore, I urged that for a lasting peace in the region resolution of conflicts was imperative. In this context I proposed that whatever steps are being taken to strengthen bilateral ties the ultimate target should be the resolution of Kashmir dispute.
What is the reason that nothing concrete has been done to resolve conflicts like Kashmir and other bilateral disputes?
Talks are going on between the two countries but it is very unfortunate that whenever there is a forward movement some untoward incidents took-place that change the entire scenario besides pushing the whole process backwards. Kargil incident, Samjota Express carnage, and attack on Indian Parliament these are the very unpleasant incidents that have by and large affected the peace process as a result no tangible steps were taken to resolve outstanding disputes. Now that the two countries were moving ahead and the Mumbai incident yet again overwhelmed and shook the whole process and this happened when Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was in India on official tour.
Indo-Pak peace process have suffered many setbacks, what is the way forward?
In my opinion India and Pakistan will have to decide that if Indo-Pak friendship is beneficial for the people of both the nations then whatever the situation dialogue must go on. No doubt there could be some elements who do not want friendly relationship between the two countries. This is a natural phenomena when two rival groups try to reconcile there is always a lobby that somehow disagrees with their plan same is the case with India and Pakistan but at the very crucial times, it is none other than the leadership that has to act positively and take wise decisions to lead the masses towards right direction. If we adopt a hawkish approach it is going to serve none other than the elements who were hell bent on disrupting peace in the region. By adopting a realistic approach we will be certainly able to defeat them. We are living in a region where there are alarming issue like poverty, hunger, illiteracy and unemployment.
The only way forward is that for the larger interests of the people in the subcontinent, both the nations have to come out of the hostile situation and move together positively and resolve all the disputes so that durable peace, stability and prosperity could prevail in the region.
What about Mumbai attacks and its implications?
As I earlier told you that these incidents have certainly vitiated the atmosphere but it is the sole responsibility of the leadership to act wisely and do not to let the peace process to derail. Despite Pakistan's positive approach, it was very unfortunate that Indian media acted irresponsibly and the way Indian leadership reacted was against the diplomatic norms. In sheer hastiness and jingoism, the hawkish elements in Indian media resorted to the traditional blame game and started raising fingers towards Pakistan, which is very unfortunate.
What about US president-elect Barak Obama's statement on Kashmir?
So for as the idea of mediation or arbitration is concerned, Pakistan has always welcomed it. But it is India that has been rejecting the third-party intervention. We also appreciate the US president Barak Obama's recent statement on Kashmir but I want to make it clear that if American wants to lend any support vis-à-vis the resolution of Kashmir dispute they will have to keep in mind the interests of the people of in the region.
How do you see Assembly Elections in Kashmir?
Kashmiris have time and again boycotted the elections and made it clear that these elections were in no way a substitute to right of self-determination. However, this is very much clear that the assembly elections are being held to elect an administrative setup in the disputed territory. If some one for the sake of argument says that people have participated in the elections they must not forget that just a couple of months back there were millions of people on the streets demanding the right to self-determination. These are two different issues, so for as the question of self-determination is concerned people of Kashmir are committed to their cause for which they have paid huge price in terms of human lives.
Terrorism is the biggest challenge, what is your assessment with regard to war against terror?
This is American terminology, I don't believe in such hypothesis; it is nothing but war of interests. All the South Asian countries must join hands together to safeguard and conserve the interests of the region.
Islamabad, 03 Dec: The seasoned parliamentarian and the Chairman of Pakistan's All Parties Parliamentary Committee on Kashmir, Moulana Fazl-ur-Rehman has said that that the dream of eternal peace in South Asia would remain illusive unless the long-standing dispute of Kashmir was resolved to the satisfaction all the concerned parties including India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir.
"Enhanced trade between the two neighbouring states, people to people contacts, peace, security and other related issues confronted by the two nations are somehow, one way or the other interlinked to Kashmir issue, therefore it is essential that India and Pakistan should make it as a basis to settle all other outstanding issues", Rehman, the well-known political cum religious leader and the chief Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam (F) Pakistan said this during an exclusive interview with Greater Kashmir on Monday.
"No doubt there are some elements who don't want good-relations between India and Pakistan but for the larger interests of the people of the subcontinent the leadership on both sides should rise to the occasion and let the peace overtures continue so that an enabling atmosphere is created to remove all the hurdles in the way of peace and harmony", he maintained.
You have been appointed as the chairman of Kashmir Committee. What are the primary objectives the Committee?
The All Parties Parliamentary Kashmir committee was established in 1994 and its formation by it-self reflects the commitment of the people and the government of Pakistan with Kashmiris' just cause.
Besides devising strategy and to develop broader consensus on the issue, the primary objective of the committee is to project Kashmir issue both at national as well as international level. In order to take Kashmiri people into confidence, the committee, periodically, holds deliberations and discussions with Kashmiri leadership on both sides of line of control to seek their point of view with regard to the developments taking place in the region. The opinions and the comprehensions of the Kashmiri leaders are given a special priority and their suggestions are accordingly incorporated in the recommendations being presented to the government of Pakistan. In this regard we had a meeting with Kashmiri leaders in which the former chairman and the senior Hurriyat leader Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat was invited.
Do all the parliamentary parties have identical approach so for as the final settlement of Kashmir dispute is concerned?
There is no second opinion as all the Parliamentary parties in Pakistan have one and the same approach on Kashmir and they speak in one voice so for as the question of final settlement of Kashmir dispute is concerned.
Under the international covenants, do you think that that Kashmiri leadership has any role in the ongoing peace talks?
As per the international and the bilateral agreements there are two parties to the dispute that is India and Pakistan, but finally it is the people of Kashmir who will decide their own destiny. However, owing to the unparalleled sacrifices of the people of Jammu and Kashmir it was need of the hour that they should be kept aware of the developments and the progress being made on the issue.
Pakistan does have a principled and historic stance over Kashmir that is the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be given a chance to exercise their right, the right to self-determination guaranteed to them by the world community
After rendering huge sacrifices for their just cause I think they could not be just ignored or kept at bay. We have a very clear stance in this regard that is Kashmiris should be associated with the dialogue process; however, if this is not possible they should be at least kept close to the talk's process whereby they could be able to observe the day to day developments in this regard.
India has offered no proposals nor has it reciprocated to the proposals put forth by Pakistan. What would you like to say about it?
Pakistan has adopted a realistic approach but it was very unfortunate that India is back tracking from its own commitments that it had been made with the people of Kashmir and the world community vis-à-vis the resolution of the dispute. We are stick to our principle stance and want that the issue should be settled in line with the pledges made at the international level.
For last several decades, no-doubt there have been many ups and downs in the bilateral relations but Kashmir is an internationally recognised dispute and India's intransigence and unrealistic attitude has always been a stumbling block in the way of peace. Though, this is encouraging that after a long struggle India has finally accepted it (Kashmir) as an important issue to be resolved through talks.
What about out of the box solutions?
With changing political scenario at international level, new approaches are being discussed but being a rational I believe that unless and until we have on hand a concrete and tangible alternative solution, acceptable to all the concerned parties India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris, we can not just think of any other solution or mechanism other than what it has been agreed under the UN resolutions.
What is your opinion regarding president Mushrraf's four point formula? Do you think it was a right move?
So for as President Mushrraf's proposal were concerned, there has not been any strong reaction from Kashmiri quarters and they had not rejected the idea out rightly but there had been some flaws on the technical side, which we have discussed threadbare. Although Mushraff Sahib put forth an idea, but it was not entertained and reciprocated by Indian rulers. As a matter of the fact this approach did not benefit Pakistan diplomatically and no substantial progress was made on the Kashmir front, it was totally a one sided affair giving an impression as if it was the sole responsibility of Pakistan to restore the confidence of Indian establishment (New Delhi).
What about the outcome of composite dialogue process, are you satisfied?
After years' of diplomatic hard work, the ongoing composite dialogue process was initiated in January 2004. It was a good beginning that benefited ordinary people but it is an established fact that there was no substantial progress on Kashmir front what it was pledged by the leadership of both the countries that the two nations would explore the ways and means to bring about an amicable solution of Kashmir tangle.
I visited New Delhi in July 2003, during my discussions with Indian leadership and I told them that there was a dire need to restore trade and communication links between the two countries. It was the time when Air links, train, bus and trade everything was just standstill. I said that the poor people of the region are inter-linked to each other, there are blood relations all across and the families are divided on both sides, there are historical, educational and spiritual links which could not be just ignored. For that matter I suggested that the dialogue was only way by which we can narrow down the differences and put an end to the decades' long hostility. I said for the betterment of the teeming millions of the subcontinent; cordial relations between the two neighbouring countries were essential. I said the poor-people of the region need peace and harmony to flourish; therefore, I urged that for a lasting peace in the region resolution of conflicts was imperative. In this context I proposed that whatever steps are being taken to strengthen bilateral ties the ultimate target should be the resolution of Kashmir dispute.
What is the reason that nothing concrete has been done to resolve conflicts like Kashmir and other bilateral disputes?
Talks are going on between the two countries but it is very unfortunate that whenever there is a forward movement some untoward incidents took-place that change the entire scenario besides pushing the whole process backwards. Kargil incident, Samjota Express carnage, and attack on Indian Parliament these are the very unpleasant incidents that have by and large affected the peace process as a result no tangible steps were taken to resolve outstanding disputes. Now that the two countries were moving ahead and the Mumbai incident yet again overwhelmed and shook the whole process and this happened when Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was in India on official tour.
Indo-Pak peace process have suffered many setbacks, what is the way forward?
In my opinion India and Pakistan will have to decide that if Indo-Pak friendship is beneficial for the people of both the nations then whatever the situation dialogue must go on. No doubt there could be some elements who do not want friendly relationship between the two countries. This is a natural phenomena when two rival groups try to reconcile there is always a lobby that somehow disagrees with their plan same is the case with India and Pakistan but at the very crucial times, it is none other than the leadership that has to act positively and take wise decisions to lead the masses towards right direction. If we adopt a hawkish approach it is going to serve none other than the elements who were hell bent on disrupting peace in the region. By adopting a realistic approach we will be certainly able to defeat them. We are living in a region where there are alarming issue like poverty, hunger, illiteracy and unemployment.
The only way forward is that for the larger interests of the people in the subcontinent, both the nations have to come out of the hostile situation and move together positively and resolve all the disputes so that durable peace, stability and prosperity could prevail in the region.
What about Mumbai attacks and its implications?
As I earlier told you that these incidents have certainly vitiated the atmosphere but it is the sole responsibility of the leadership to act wisely and do not to let the peace process to derail. Despite Pakistan's positive approach, it was very unfortunate that Indian media acted irresponsibly and the way Indian leadership reacted was against the diplomatic norms. In sheer hastiness and jingoism, the hawkish elements in Indian media resorted to the traditional blame game and started raising fingers towards Pakistan, which is very unfortunate.
What about US president-elect Barak Obama's statement on Kashmir?
So for as the idea of mediation or arbitration is concerned, Pakistan has always welcomed it. But it is India that has been rejecting the third-party intervention. We also appreciate the US president Barak Obama's recent statement on Kashmir but I want to make it clear that if American wants to lend any support vis-à-vis the resolution of Kashmir dispute they will have to keep in mind the interests of the people of in the region.
How do you see Assembly Elections in Kashmir?
Kashmiris have time and again boycotted the elections and made it clear that these elections were in no way a substitute to right of self-determination. However, this is very much clear that the assembly elections are being held to elect an administrative setup in the disputed territory. If some one for the sake of argument says that people have participated in the elections they must not forget that just a couple of months back there were millions of people on the streets demanding the right to self-determination. These are two different issues, so for as the question of self-determination is concerned people of Kashmir are committed to their cause for which they have paid huge price in terms of human lives.
Terrorism is the biggest challenge, what is your assessment with regard to war against terror?
This is American terminology, I don't believe in such hypothesis; it is nothing but war of interests. All the South Asian countries must join hands together to safeguard and conserve the interests of the region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)